Re: Infinitives & gerunds
| From: | H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 4, 2006, 20:09 |
|---|
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 07:46:52PM +0100, R A Brown wrote:
> H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:20:57AM +0100, R A Brown wrote:
>
> >>What I meant to say is that the words concerned show inflexion for
> >>the three core cases of nouns. I was referring to _ka'aman_ and
> >>_arapan_, which are both inflected for receptive case. If these
> >>words have receptive case inflexion then, surely, they must in some
> >>way function as nouns.
> >Hmm. I think there must be some miscommunication here. These case
> >inflections do *not* indicate the function of the verb/infinitive in
> >the main clause, but rather the function of the subject NP in the
> >infinitive clause.
>
> I did understand that the case inflexions of the infinitive did not
> indicate the function of the infinitive as it relates to the main
> clause. I understood from what you said, and from what you have
> repeated above, that the inflexion showed how the infinitive related
> to the first NP (subject NP) of the infinitive clause itself.
> But.......
>
> >IOW, if the infinitive is receptive, that doesn't mean that it's
> >receptive wrt. the main verb. Rather, it indicates that the subject
> >NP in the main clause is to be understood as functioning as a
> >receptive argument to the infinitive.
>
> Ah - so do I understand that 'subject NP' referred to above is the
> subject NP _of the main clause_?
That's correct. Sorry, I'm not being very clear again.
> In that case, I did misunderstand. So the case flexions of the
> verb/infinitive do not indicate the case of the verb/infinitive itself
> but rather how the subject NP of the main clause is related to the
> verb/infinitive - interesting (but then that's only to be expected of
> TF :)
Hehe. :-)
> I see - so are they really nominal at all? Are they really
> infinitives? FWI I do not think they are participles.
>
> Now I think I've finally understood what's going on, I think I agree
> with you that they are not nouns. This means, of course, not
> infinitives. I see that on the web-site you refer to them as
> subordinative forms. That's what they are: they're _subordinatives-
> :)
Hmm, OK. I suppose I should call them subordinatives then.
> So TF is yet another language that has no infinitive, and where we
> would you an infinitive it uses a clause where the verb is
> subordinative. i like it!
>
> (Thinks: I suppose the subject line should be changed again)
So the original subject line was appropriate after all. :-)
[...]
> [snip - now that we agree (I think)]
> >>There are, as I have written in an earlier mail, languages that do
> >>inflect the infinitive (e.g. Turkish) and, as far as I can see, there
> >>is no intrinsic reason why they should not be inflected.
> >How do they inflect their infinitives? Or, more importantly, what do the
> >inflections mean?
>
> By adding the same suffixes as are added to oblique cases of the noun.
> So in the sentence 'I love to write/I love writing' it has the
> accusative ending. If the sentence were 'I take the liberty of writing
> to you', 'of writing' is the genitive of the infinitive. 'I refrain
> from writing' - the infinitive has the ablative ending, etc.
Ahh, I see.
> But this is not particularly abnormal and, of course, has no relevance
> to TF :)
Actually, this is similar to how TF's gerunds work. (See below.) In
light of your clarifications, now I'm starting to wonder if TF's gerunds
are closer to infinitives than I thought.
[...]
> >>> That old woman
> >>> baan ikaren muras kuinin sei
> >>> old_woman CVY:shoe black own:RCP CVY
> >>> The old woman who owns the black shoes.
> >>>The syntactic nesting of this last is:
> >>> (baan ((ikaren muras) kuinin) sei)
> >>>Since the relative clause is in adjectival position, a literal
> >>>translation might be something like "the black-shoe-owning woman".
> >>>Seems more like a participle than an infinitive to me, although
> >>>again, not agreeing with the head noun in case,
> >>
> >>Exactly! Therefore IMO not a participle.
> >Oh?
>
> See above - 'kuninin' does not agree with 'baan'; it is a verb (a
> subordinative verb) with an inflexion which shows that 'baan' is
> receptive in relation to the subordinative verb. No - I do not think
> it is a participle any more than I now think it is an infinitive. I
> think it is a subordinative _verb_.
OK, subordinative it is. :-)
> I can't think of a natlang that works like that. But then TF has one
> or two unusual features :)
Yep. :-)
This particular feature seems to be a direct consequence of the case
system, though. Due to the nature of the case system, any of the three
core noun cases can serve as the "subject" of a clause, and therefore,
in a subordinate clause, one has no choice but to somehow indicate the
function of the (main clause's) subject inside the clause or risk
disastrous ambiguity. For example, if case was not marked on the
subordinative verb, a phrase like "girl who gave a gift" could be
misinterpreted as "the girl who was given a gift" or even "the girl who
was given as a gift", which could be very dangerous if spoken in the
wrong context. The choice to mark the case on the verb seems logical,
because after all it is the verb that makes the clause subordinate.
[...]
> >>(b) It is used in clauses like:
> >> tara' kei uenai ibuneis ka'aman ia.
> >> (she ORG) want (AUX_CVY:mushroom eat:INF_RCP) COMPL
> >>..where the whole clause functions as a noun, i.e. we have a nominal
> >>clause. In the familiar SOV langs, it is the object of 'want' - would
> >>that be receptive in TF?
> >Ah, I think this is where the misunderstanding is.
>
> Yes. I would now say of (b):
> ... where the whole clause functions as a noun, i.e. we have a nominal
> clause. In the familiar SOV langs, it is the object of 'want'. In TF,
> however, the subordinative verb indicates how the clause is related to
> the subject NP of the main clause (or something like that).
Correct.
> [helpful examples snipped]
> >>(c) It is also used in clauses like:
> >> baan ikaren muras kuinin sei
> >> old_woman CVY:shoe black own:RCP CVY
> >> The old woman who owns the black shoes.
> >>..where the whole clause functions as an adjective, i.e. we have an
> >>adjectival clause.
> > Correct.
>
> Good :)
>
> >>*I don't think conjugate/conjugation is the right word if we are
> >>talking about core case forms.
> >But would it make sense if the case forms indicated not the function
> >of the infinitive, but the function of the *subject*?
>
> I see what you mean. Yes, leave it as it is. Indeed, if I had taken
> more notice of _conjugate_, I might not have misunderstood in the
> first place. Mea culpa!
OK. :-) Don't worry, if anything, you helped me realize that I need to
clarify things that I thought were obvious.
[...]
> >OK. Then I'm still in the dark as to how I should describe this
> >particular form of adjectival clause that uses the relative verb
> >forms.
>
> I think in fact you have described them well enough
>
http://conlang.eusebeia.dyndns.org/fara/relinf.html
> It's just me skimming the thing instead of reading it more carefully.
>
> But under 'Infinitive Clauses' the two examples in fact show
> _purpose_, so may be 'Purposes Clauses' might be better (especially as
> TF seems to have no infinitives :)
> Now does TF really have gerunds (which are also verbal nouns)? Or is
> 'gerundive' really a better term after all? Or are they something else
> :)
Well, I'll let you be the judge. What I currently call gerunds (or
"gerundives", but I think you're right that it's not a good term for
them) work as follows:
1) As a nominal verb (like the English gerund):
hapasi nijibin so sianas baibai.
(harm-GND RCP:child CVY) shameful COMPL
Harming a child (or, the harming of a child) is shameful.
2) As reported action:
tara' kei tsana huu na ka'ami nitiki ipuresi so aniin.
3sp ORG speak 1sp RCP eat:GND RCP:rabbit CVY:carrot CVY COMPL
She tells me that the rabbit eats a carrot.
(Lit., she tells me of the eating of a carrot by the rabbit.)
3) As a nominalized clause (syntactically identical to (2)):
huu na hamra hapasi nijibin ko aram.
1sp RCP see (harm-GND RCP:child ORG) COMPL
I see a child being harmed (or, I see the harming of a child).
4) As a purpose clause (similar to using a subordinative verb):
diru kei anai na'iat sei hamra'i be asamat nijibin utu eimei.
girl ORG hold_up cloth CVY see:GND NEG ORG:man RCP:child for COMPL
The girl holds up the cloth so that the man would not see the child.
(Lit., "... for the purpose of the not seeing of the child by
the man.")
(Unrelated note: _eimei_ here is an unusual complement to use with
_anai_, and means shunning or avoiding; the usual complement _fata_
conveys the sense of displaying something.)
> I think I must re-read the TF stuff properly.
>
> But I must say I am enjoying this thread. TF is such an unusual
> language in many respects. Yet it does seem to work. I would dearly
> love to have it spoken by a community of people to see how it worked
> out in practice - but I guess that's not likely to happen {sigh}
[...]
Well, if we could convince enough people to learn and master TF ... :-)
(One can dream, right?)
Seriously, though, although there are many things I like about TF, there
are also places where I feel like the seams are stretching
uncomfortably. The prospect of an overly long relative clause sitting
between a noun and its case particle seems to be pushing the limit of
how much one needs to keep in mind at any one time --- especially when
so much semantic load is dependent on that last little word. It could
very well turn out to be a postposition instead, which would
significantly change the interpretation of the whole phrase. Too much of
this may lead to repeated cognitive clash at the end of each NP. I think
Tagalog had it right with putting case markers in front of the noun. :-)
T
--
Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful
objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. Imagination without skill
gives us modern art. -- Tom Stoppard
Reply